Wednesday, 27 September 2017

Following the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyad
Caliphate in 750 AD, the Sindh became independent. The Sindh foiled two
invasions by the Abbasid in 769 and 785 AD. Between the invasions, the Abbasid
launched a number of naval sorties along the coast of Sindh.

At its core, the Sindh army retained something of its
former organization with auxiliaries supplied by Hindu troops. The Arab Indian has
‘tropical’ as their home terrain and it is in this terrain that all three
battles will take place.

Game 1

Wood flanking their left, the Arab Indian deploy in
two lines with their cavalry formed in the second. Light troops have secured
the wood and from this position they will harass the Abbasid right. The Abbasid
have formed an extended line with their cavalry taking a position on the open
left flank.

The Abbasid bring their cavalry into action on the
left forcing the Arab Indian to contract their line. Abbasid spear advance
steadily while the light troops of both sides are now actively engaged on the
right. Casualties are light on both sides (1 – 1) as the battle progresses in
earnest.

The Abbasid advance now becomes fragmented as Arab
resistance stiffens and isolated battles now take the place of formed lines. Fighting
from interior lines, the Arab Indian rapidly set reserve cavalry into action; these
shift the battle in their favour. Score 4
– 2 for the Arab Indian.

Game 2

Using a wood and river to protect their left flank,
the Abbasid deploy in a standard formation with all their heavy cavalry in
reserve behind the infantry spear and archers. The Arab Indian adapts a similar
formation with their heavy cavalry supporting their left and right wing.

With archers deployed in each battle line, the advance
becomes slow and steady.

Arab Indian archery has a devastating effect as they
bring down the entire Abbasid bow. This sets a critical moment for the Abbasid
as casualties mount faster than they can develop their battle.

Desperate charges by the Abbasid had little effect
than deliver more opportunity for the Arab Indian. Calling for a general
retreat the Abbasid left the field. Score
5 – 1 for the Arab Indian.

Game 3

The open ground between river and wood offered minimal
room to deploy effectively and so the Abbasid deployed a light skirmishing
force on the right bank to harass the Arab Indian approach.

The wood, situated on the Abbasid left become hotly
contested with the Mutatawwiá fighting
at 1 to 2 odds. The main battle lines
approach slowly as both sides archers were trying to find their mark. The
Abbasid troops on the opposite bank were having their intended effect as Arab
Indian troops were sent to cover any intended crossing.

With their attention diverted the activity across the
river, the Abbasid launched a coordinated attack by their spear and heavy
cavalry. Arab Indian resistance crumbled as their archers were struck down
leaving gaping holes and exposed flanks, ending the battle in a decisive
victory for the Abbasid. Score 6 – 3 for
the Abbasid.

Thursday, 21 September 2017

The Byzantine army face east with its left wing resting
on the Euphrates River. To secure the army’s flank, General Ascan has placed all
his infantry there with all the cavalry under his command to their right. In
the centre, Belisarius deploys his cavalry to extend Ascan’s line and to
support his heavy cavalry are the Hunnic light horse. Completing the Byzantine
deployment, the Lycaonian infantry are positioned furthest to the right adjacent to the Ghassanid allies.

Across the field, Azarethes has deployed his heavy cavalry with light horse archers to face each of the Byzantine commands. Behind each division are reserve cavalry units forming a second line.

The Ghassanid Arabs are deployed along the rising
ground forming the Byzantine army’s right wing. Across the field the Lakhmid Arabs can be seen deployed in
equal number.

The ground is ideal terrain for cavalry and marked
only by small patches of rough ground. As the battle commences, the Arab allies
on both sides demonstrate unusual energy and close the distance between them.
The rocky ground in front of the Lakhmid position forces them to split their
effort; their light troops must first secure the ground leaving their cavalry back in support. In contrast, the Ghassanid are not hindered by the terrain and so move
forward on a broad front.

Both opposing centres move cautiously forward placing
their initial effort on their flanks closest to the Euphrates River. Ascan has
moved his infantry ahead of his cavalry line confident that they will push the
light horse away from the river bank..

Nearly an hour has passed (turn 3) and the first
casualties can be seen dotting the hill slope on both sides of the line. The
Lakhmid skirmishers, making good use of the rocky ground could now harass
either Ghassanid taking place on either side.

The Byzantine infantry were able to force the horse
archers to withdraw so now their efforts would focus on the Asavaran cavalry. At
this moment, a unit of skutatoi moved into the rocky area separating two Persian cavalry lines.

Approaching mid-day (turn 6), the Arab allies on both sides have fought well and inflicted an equal number of casualties (2 – 2), yet neither side could manage to turn the
other’s flank and take advantage of the higher ground. Further toward the river, the Byzantine and Sassanid were fully engaged
along the entire line with casualties beginning to fall among each of the four
commands.

Despite the long period of skirmishing the Byzantine
were steadily pushing the Sassanid cavalry back and with Ascan's the infantry turning
the Persian right away from the river bank the prospects for a victory looked
good.

After hours of skirmishing to and fro, dust clouds had obscured
the activity taking place behind the Persian line. Both Azarethes and his
subordinate had slowly moved their reserves further south and the vassal
horse archers were recalled from the far right flank to join the battle in
centre.

Mid-day had passed (turn 10) and on the hill Ghassanid
troops could be seen fleeing along the slope as they had been dealt a deciding
blow by the Lakhmid (4 – 2). This did not bode well for Belisarius as both
centre commands had reached a tipping point (3 – 3). Calling on his troops to
renew their effort Belisarius with his Bucellarii joined the battle.

Both army banners could be seen in close proximity of
one another, but both commanders were focused with fighting their separate battles. The laughter
of the muses could be clearly heard as both centre commands reached demoralisation on the same bound,
but it was the timely arrival of the light horse from the right wing that
tipped the scales. With the Ghassanid in fleeing the field and his own command
broken, Belisarius was forced to order a retreat.

Note:

The battle did flow as history is recorded. In actuality
it was a long series of low pip scores that held the Persians back from
developing their game plan. Despite the low scores, both Persian reserves
slowly moved south toward the anticipated weak link; the area between the
cavalry of Belisarius and the Lycaonian infantry. It was here that the Hunnic
light horse was destroyed which prompted the recall of the Persian light horse
from the right flank. Their rapid relocation tipped the balance to help win the
battle.

In retrospect, one-third of the Byzantine army was
infantry which limited any use of reserves to the commanders and their
immediate guard. This became a critical issue as the Byzantine could not
counter the Persian relocation of troops.

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

Following the Persian defeat at the Battle of Dara (530 AD), King Kavadh I continued his campaign the following spring by sending
another force to probe deeper into Byzantine territory (Commagene) with intent to
capture a number of Syrian cities. This force, led by Azarethes, consisted of
15,000 cavalry had an additional 5,000 Lakhmid allies. Trailing the Persian
force, Belisarius had insufficient troops to bring Azarethes to battle, but reinforcements
arrived on Easter Friday giving Belisarius a slight advantage in numbers.

Having defeated the Persians on two occasions,
Byzantine commanders were naturally eager for battle, but rather than risk
battle, Belisarius preferred to drive the Persians back across the frontier. Further, the Easter
weekend would be an inauspicious moment to fight as many troops would be
fasting. The general consensus wanted battle, so relenting, Belisarius drew up his forces the following day.

The
battlefield.

The battle is described as having taken place on the
south bank of the Euphrates River and for the most part this offered level ground for half the battlefield rising
gently for the remainder of the field. No further description of the terrain is given, but gathering from
the disposition of the Byzantine infantry we might conclude there was suitable cover for infantry to operate against cavalry.

The game board.1 x Waterway (Euphrates River), 3 x rocky ground, and rising ground stretching across the depth of the board (starting 12BW from the board edge and gradually rising every 4BW).

Byzantine infantry on the left secured the south bank of the Euphrates and on the right, the Lycaonian infantry formed on the rising ground with all the Byzantine cavalry positioned in centre. The Ghassanid Arabs under Al-Harith were deployed further up on the rising slope.

Sources describe the Sassanidas an all cavalry force, so an adjustment to the DBA Sassanid Persian list II/69c should be made for this battle. No elephants, levy or Dailami are mentioned as being present, so Asavaran cavalry and vassal horse archers are substituted for these. The Persian Azarethes placed the Lakhmid Arabs under Al-Mundhir to face the Ghassanid and the Sassanid Asavaran faced the Byzantine troops.

Note:

Both Arab allies are described as mounted and for this
re-fight we may conclude that those foot troops present have left their mounts
(mules, camels) to the rear of their deployment. Tomorrow, the battle.

Thursday, 14 September 2017

The Umayyad, encamped south of the Zab
River, deployed its force into two wings of equal strength. The long line of spearmen was
flanked by archers and small units of heavy cavalry protected their flanks.
The remaining mounted units formed a reserve behind each of the infantry wings.

The Abbasid, as the attacker, positioned all their infantry to face the
Umayyad left wing and held a large cavalry group to face the Umayyad right.
Both commands were of equal strength with one exception, all the light horse were deployed on the right wing.

The
opening moves.

The infantry lines of both sides moved forward and
took up positions on either side of the river. The resulting sporadic archery
had little effect but did offer both sides a moments respite to consider some new
options. On the extreme right flank, the crossing of the river by the Abbasid
light horse was contested by Umayyad light horse and Jund cavalry.

By good fortune, the Umayyad light horse had been
beaten offering the Abbasid an opportunity to counter which they did with good
effect (2 – 0).

Despite the setback, the commander of the left wing
held the river bank with his spearmen and re positioned his remaining infantry in
echelon and Jund cavalry still further back. This offered the Abbasid an
unopposed crossing but it was no means a coordinated one; this opened a
possible opportunity.

The
middle game.

That opportunity presented itself on turn five when the
Umayyad struck a small group of infantry with their Jund cavalry. The success
of having eliminated one infantry unit was offset by the loss of their own
bringing the score to a desperate 3 – 1.

The Abbasid infantry of the left wing were now engaged
with the Umayyad on the opposite bank.

After two hours of battle (turn 8) the Umayyad left
became demoralised as another unit of Jund fell to Abbasid javelins but the
effort had cost the Abbasid dear (4 – 2).

On the Umayyad right, the infantry were holding the
river line sending every Abbasid recoiling back for their effort.

With the infantry of the Umayyad right hotly engaged,
the Jund cavalry, five units strong, reached the bank of the Zab intent on
forcing the battle to a conclusion. On the left flank, the slaughter continued as
Abbasid caught isolated units, yet the spearmen of the left wing held their
position at the river bank with their general directly behind them.

After two and a half hours of battle (turn 10), the Abbasid
archers demonstrated how well their condition had not slackened one bit.

The end
game.

The drama that developed for the Umayyad now moved to
the right flank as isolated infantry and cavalry units quickly moved forward to
defend the river bank. The battle took an unexpected turn as each of the four
combats fell in quick succession against the Umayyad bringing the battle to an
end; 10g – 2 on the Umayyad left, 4 – 2 on the Umayyad right.

Each command consists of 12 elements, therefore four
casualties are needed for a command to reach demoralisation. Umayyad commands are identical
while the Abbasid have redeployed their light horse and Zanj infantry.

Optional
scenarios.

The historical strengths for both sides varied great,
but most set the Abbasid force at around 35,000 troops with the Umayyad
fielding two or three times that number. Despite the odds, the Abbasid had a string
of victories the previous year and were eager for battle, more so as their
leader, Abdallah ibn Ali had been proclaimed the rightful Caliph.

In contrast, the frequency of rebellion over the past
four years had eroded the confidence the troops had with Marwan II’s capacity
to lead; this was demonstrated by the reluctance of some units to obey orders
during battle.

There are a few ways to reflect this in the game, one,
by increasing the number of Umayyad troops and/or two, adjusting the total
needed to demoralize an Umayyad command.

Option 1, the Abbasid retain their two commands totaling 24
elements while the Umayyad are increased to 36 elements but still form two
commands. This would prompt an Umayyad player to maintain larger groups or
maneuver part of a command while the rest remained inert which would
demonstrate to a degree a level of disunity within the command.

Option 2, the 36 elements are distributed among three commands
and not two. The total needed to reach demoralisation however, should be
lowered by one for the two commands subordinate to Marwan II. Both sides must demoralise
two commands to reach victory and despite the Umayyad having a superiority of
numbers, their confidence can be shaken when the casualties mount.

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

Marwan II (744–50), the grandson of Marwan I, led an army into Damascus
in December 744, where he was proclaimed caliph. Moving the capital to Harran a rebellion soon broke out in Syria resulting in
retaliatory action against the cities of Homs and Damascus (745). Further opposition broke out in
Iraq and Iran from the Kharijites (746) who brought forward their claimants to
the caliph. No sooner was the revolt suppressed when a time a more serious
threat had arisen in Khorasan.

Around 746, Abu Muslim assumed leadership of the Hashimiyya in Khurasan. In
747, Abu Muslim successfully initiated an open revolt in Khurasan against
Umayyad rule. With an army he gained control over the province of Khurasan and
in 749 captured Kufa, the last Umayyad stronghold in Iraq. In November of the
same year Abul Abbas
as-Saffah was recognized as
the new caliph.

From his capital in Harran, Marwan II mobilized his
troops and advanced toward Iraq. In January 750 the two forces met along the
banks of the Zab River.

The
battlefield and troop strength

One source {1} sets the date of the battle at January
25, 750 AD, but little else is known about its location other than it was
fought along its banks. If this is so, then the river might be considered
paltry allowing troops to freely cross at any point, alternatively, despite a
low water level, its banks could still pose a problem forcing a constricted
passage. Some sources make reference to the construction of a pontoon bridge to
help speed the crossing by Umayyad troops {2}, nonetheless, troops were able to
cross at other points of the river

The photos seen here are sourced from Wiki Commons and are
placed merely to give a general impression of the river and nearby terrain.

Troop strengths vary from modest to exaggerated, but all
sources give the Umayyad a numerical advantage. However, that advantage was
offset with some Umayyad troops having questionable morale brought about
through past uprisings and defeats plus the relocation of the capital. For this
game we shall dispense with the calculation of numbers and give both sides two
commands each (24 elements).

Sunday, 10 September 2017

Since the publication of DBA
3.0, I have devoted much time and attention to the construction of new terrain
pieces. During the early stages of 3.0 testing, the terrain we used came from
the gunpowder collection which was, on the whole, quite large in quantity and size. Through our game
experience we quickly saw a need to create new items and preferably these should be of medium
or small size. Further, we swapped the standard board for one of a larger
format, 80cm x 80cm. This seemed paradoxical, but enlarging the game board did diminish
the chance of discarding terrain pieces resulting in some quadrants containing three
pieces. This generate some interesting battles and certainly changed our
perspective with regard to certain terrain features, such as BUA
and rivers.

As the collecting of ancient and
medieval armies proceeded this was done on a project basis focusing on a central theme army and a
host of enemies. The first of these, the Severan Dynasty (3rd century
AD), focused on Rome and the enemies it faced across its frontiers. Hilly terrain was
quickly needed to engage the Picts, forest regions were needed to fight most of the barbarians, the nomadic horsemen had steppe as home terrain, and the Parthians needed dry landscape to call home.

Generally, the construction
of terrain features began after the completion of a new army. As time progressed and the number of armies grew,
the terrain pieces varied in quality and colour. This was due to either new materials used
or new ideas were implemented for their construction.

The Historical Match Ups series posted here gave me an opportunity to use the armies, experiment with terrain
placement, the deployment of the armies, and simulate their tactics, but a closer
inspection of the photos did reveal much that needed to be done with the terrain. It was then I decided to take a rigorous step and standardise
the terrain pieces for all seven DBA categories.

The project took a few
months to complete, but I am satisfied with the end result. The templates used for
the majority of bad and rough going were produced in standard size and shape which
greatly reduced the storage space by 60%. Bad and rough going terrain pieces now consisted of one large feature (6BW x 3BW), three mid-size (4BW x 3BW) and one or
two small pieces (3BW x 2BW); the latter are useful as terrain can be intersected by a road or river.

Duplicate templates were
made so they could be used in European landscape or dry arid regions; an arable
region located in Mesopotamia should look somewhat different than one located in France.
Templates could also serve multiple functions depending on the scatter material
placed on top; this could represent rocky, scrub, marsh, enclosures or even BUA
(hamlet) and all this is covered on the final page.

Where applicable, I have
noted the dimensions and quantity of certain pieces under the photos.

Below is an overview of the
armies having a particular terrain by type listed in each book. Do not overlook
the fact that the first book blankets a longer period of time with each
successive book a five century period. Some sub-lists may have two terrain types
as this reflects a period of migration or conquest.

These are a single thickness
(2mm) of floor cover material, painted and flocked with electrostatic grass. I
prefer the grass over the use of turf to cover my terrain as this has proven
resistant to constant usage. Regarding the size of hills, I found it convenient
to have one large (3BW x 6BW) and several smaller hills (3BW x 4BW) available
for games.

Difficult Hill

These are made from the same
material as described above, but with two pieces glued together. If the upper
piece reduced by a ½ BW this will keep figures from toppling over and function
as the area from which bow may shoot from, see p. 10, paragraph 3, Distant
Shooting. Apply glue along the outer edge of the underside as this will avoid
shrinkage and your hill curling. Difficult hill .

I have constructed a duplicate
and painted these for use in European and dryer climes; the latter have
electrostatic grass sprinkled over them, then painted an earth colour and later
dry-brushed. I find this technique enhances the ‘arid’ look. The large rock
formations (sculpted from pink foam) help identify these as difficult hills
rather than raised gentle hills.

Difficult hill for arid landscapes

Wood

I made two sets of templates
so wood can be used in for European or arid climates. From our game experience
we found the smaller wood far more effective than a large one; during the
placement of terrain there is less chance of discarding a wood.

Wood in dry locations can
have their templates treated in the same manner as described in the section
Difficult Hills. The trees (2 or 3) are mounted on triangular or oval shaped bases
made of 1.2mm thick triplex. I found it expedient to paint the bases dark brown
so fir trees may be used for both climate regions. Wood (trees fixed three to a base)

Enclosure

Enclosures have fencing,
hedges or ditches to mark its boundaries. These are considered rough going and
mine have hedges which can be removed. The same template can serve as scrub, marsh, boggy ground
by simple placement of the appropriate scatter on top. See page – Scatter Material. Enclosure with hedges and gate

If you prefer stones mounted
on thin strips, then I recommend these have measurements of ½ BW x 2BW which
can easily conform to any curvature of your template.

Road and Rivers

These are constructed from
the same material as used for hills; 2mm thick floor covering. The pieces are
1BW wide as per specification, so the actual road and water surface will be slightly
less. I prefer a length of 5BW for both as this will allow roads to meet BUA if
placed away from a board edge and with the use of small curved sections (2BW)
you can simulate a river meandering around hills and wood. The small curved sections
are useful, so you may want to produce enough to use a full length of river. As
our boards are 80cm square this would allow the placement of 120cm of either
road or river.

Road and river

Waterway

This feature is covered in
detail under Littoral features.

Waterway

PloughThese plough are the result of several variations. The field is produced by Busch and is packaged as one large sheet roughly 20cm x 21cm. This is enough to cut into small pieces and glue to the standard template after it has been painted an earth colour. Pictured here are two versions of grain fields. BUA (built up areas)Plough.

BUA (built up areas)Of the four types listed in the rule book, City, Fort, Hamlet and Edifice, we prefer to use the hamlet option. A hamlet does not require a garrison but is considered rough going and would reduce movement for troops other than 'fast' types. The construction of the buildings can be followed here.BUA (hamlet)Pictured above in the section 'road and river' you will note the advantage of basing structures apart from its template; these can be swapped with others of another architectural style or era. Next: Forest